Bad advice given in photographic magazines soon gets picked up and batted back. A reader of Amateur Photographer (5 July 2014), Paul Robinson, soon pointed out that superzoom bridge cameras, in this case the Canon SX50 HS, were what birders use to photograph birds and that DSLRs for shots in the field were pretty useless.
The photographic magazines are really not staffed to provide reliable information on anything other than amateur 'pictorial' photography (as the meaning of 'pictorial' has changed over the years) and subjects covered by professionals in the world of commerce.
There is much better advice available online on almost anything in photography.
Showing posts with label canon SX50. Show all posts
Showing posts with label canon SX50. Show all posts
Sunday, 13 July 2014
Saturday, 8 February 2014
Cameras for Birding: The ‘Bridge’ Camera Zoom War: Now There Are Six (Canon SX50, Fuji S1, Nikon P530, Olympus SP-100EE, Panasonic Lumix FZ72, Sony HX300)
I last looked at the superzoom ‘bridge’ cameras last August. Since then others have come in to join the competition. Eighteen months ago there was only one—the Nikon P510. Taking the cut-off point as the 35 mm equivalent of a 1000 mm lens, I can now find six in the category from Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony.
In some respects, comparison is now easier. All have stabilisation; all have 1/2.3 sensors; all have very similar maximum apertures (approximately f/3 to f/6). In the following table I have only shown those features that are of key importance to birders and that I have found information on: zoom range, resolution, output, weight and price.
The prices in the table are those quoted by WEX today. The Canon, Panasonic and Sony appeared in my last post on this subject. The Olympus and Fuji models are new, with the Fuji S1 yet to appear in UK.
In this comparison, there is very little to choose, in terms of theoretical performance, between them. The Canon has a smaller sensor but should suffer less from noise in low light.
The biggest disadvantage in using my Nikon P510 at full zoom is the speed of focusing. I do not know if there is any real difference between the cameras I have listed in this, to me, important respect. The times stated for autofocus may not have much meaning when aiming at a small bird at full zoom. Some have focus limiters, presumably to save the ‘hunting’ for focus throughout the entire range.
There are other fatures, not key ones for birding, that are worth considering. Fuji say that their new S1, is ‘weather resistant’ and has an intervalometer for time-lapse sequences. And yes, I am tempted even though it is much heavier than the Nikon.
In some respects, comparison is now easier. All have stabilisation; all have 1/2.3 sensors; all have very similar maximum apertures (approximately f/3 to f/6). In the following table I have only shown those features that are of key importance to birders and that I have found information on: zoom range, resolution, output, weight and price.
| Optical Zoom (equiv) | Resolution (Mpixels) | Output Still) | Weight (g) | Price (GBP) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canon SX50 | 24-1200 | 12 | RAW/JPG | 595 | 319 |
| Fuji S1 | 24-1200 | 16 | RAW/JPG | 680 | 399 |
| Nikon P530 | 24-1000 | 16 | JPG | 494 | 329 |
| Olympus SP-100EE | 24-1200 | 16 | JPG | 589 | 349 |
| Panasonic FZ72 | 20-1200 | 16 | RAW/JPG | 660 | 289 |
| Sony HX300 | 24-1200 | 20 | JPG | 623 | 319 |
The prices in the table are those quoted by WEX today. The Canon, Panasonic and Sony appeared in my last post on this subject. The Olympus and Fuji models are new, with the Fuji S1 yet to appear in UK.
There are other fatures, not key ones for birding, that are worth considering. Fuji say that their new S1, is ‘weather resistant’ and has an intervalometer for time-lapse sequences. And yes, I am tempted even though it is much heavier than the Nikon.
Sunday, 4 August 2013
Cameras for Birding: The ‘Bridge’ Camera Zoom War: Panasonic Lumix FZ72 Joins The Fray
Panasonic have now joined the zoom war in the increasingly popular superzoom ‘bridge’ camera category that is so good for birding.
| Nikon P520 | Canon SX50 | Fuji HS50 | Sony HX300 | Panasonic FZ72 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optical Zoom (equiv) | 24-1000 | 24-1200 | 24-1000 | 24-1200 | 20-1200 |
| Max Aperture | 3-5.9 | 3.4-6.5 | 2.8-5.6 | 2.8-6.3 | 2.8-5.9 |
| Sensor Size | 1/2.3 | 1/2.3 | 1/2 | 1/2.3 | 1/2.3 |
| Resolution (Mpixels) | 18.1 | 12.1 | 16 | 20.4 | 16.1 |
| Output Size (pixels) | 4896x3612 | 4000x3000 | 4609x3456 | 5184x3888 | 4608x3456 |
| Stablisation | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Output | JPEG | RAW/JPEG | RAW/JPEG | JPEG | RAW/JPEG |
| Video | Full HD | Full HD | Full HD | Full HD | Full HD |
| Weight g | 550 | 595 | 758 | 623 | 562 |
I haven’t seen a review of this new camera yet but how the market has changed in little over a year: from only a Nikon to a five superzooms from all the main manufacturers. Given the reputation of the Lumix series, I suspect this new one will provide the others with stiff competition.
Wednesday, 22 May 2013
Sony HX-300, Canon SX50 and Fuji HS50 for Birding: A Quick Hands-On
One of the team was at a hands-on display of super-zoom 'bridge' cameras in Hong Kong this week. As a Nikon P510 owner, he was impressed by the Sony HX-300, thought the Canon SX50 'OK' but really did not like the Fuji HS50 - 'horrible' was his exact word.
Saturday, 30 March 2013
Canon SX50, Fuji HS50, Nikon P520, Sony HX-300 Reviewed in AP
Amateur Photographer (20 March) has a useful comparative review of these 'flagship bridge cameras' in the 'zoom war' I have followed in earlier posts.
I have covered the main points previously as far as birding/wildlife are concerned. By comparing the handling and output of all four, the AP review adds further information.
Some issues AP raised are:
Canon SX50. Difficult to grip. LCD and EVF (the thing that passes for a viewfinder these days) worst on test.
Fuji HS50. Largest and heaviest. On/off switch turns too easily.
Nikon P520. Autofocus (contrast detection) slow compared with the others. No quick menu. Handles well.
Sony HX300. Handling very good. Large but lightweight.
In terms of resolution, the Sony and Nikon were best but the Fuji and Canon were better at higher ISO settings, as would be expected from the size of, and number of photoreceptive sites on, the sensor.
At the 24 mm equivalent to 35 mm end of the zoom, the Fuji showed marked barrel distortion. The Nikon and Sony were best. However, for chromatic aberration, Fuji was the best, followed by Sony and then the Nikon and Canon.
AP gave an overall mark of 81% to the Canon (why?) and Sony, 79% to the Fuji and 78% to the Nikon, which, surprise, surprise, correlates with the price. They regarded the Sony HX300 as the best overall, despite its lack of RAW output.
I would be hard pushed to choose now that Nikon has been joined by the others in this market. Since my P510 is used for birding/wildlife and travel as an additional camera, only if one of the others showed a marked superiority in speed of focusing would I consider defecting from the really light Nikon to one of the others.
The player missing in this market at the moment is Panasonic. Will they come up with a competitor?
Here is an Easter Bunny, taken a couple of days ago using one of the family Nikon P510s with the zoom fully extended.
I have covered the main points previously as far as birding/wildlife are concerned. By comparing the handling and output of all four, the AP review adds further information.
Some issues AP raised are:
Canon SX50. Difficult to grip. LCD and EVF (the thing that passes for a viewfinder these days) worst on test.
Fuji HS50. Largest and heaviest. On/off switch turns too easily.
Nikon P520. Autofocus (contrast detection) slow compared with the others. No quick menu. Handles well.
Sony HX300. Handling very good. Large but lightweight.
In terms of resolution, the Sony and Nikon were best but the Fuji and Canon were better at higher ISO settings, as would be expected from the size of, and number of photoreceptive sites on, the sensor.
At the 24 mm equivalent to 35 mm end of the zoom, the Fuji showed marked barrel distortion. The Nikon and Sony were best. However, for chromatic aberration, Fuji was the best, followed by Sony and then the Nikon and Canon.
AP gave an overall mark of 81% to the Canon (why?) and Sony, 79% to the Fuji and 78% to the Nikon, which, surprise, surprise, correlates with the price. They regarded the Sony HX300 as the best overall, despite its lack of RAW output.
I would be hard pushed to choose now that Nikon has been joined by the others in this market. Since my P510 is used for birding/wildlife and travel as an additional camera, only if one of the others showed a marked superiority in speed of focusing would I consider defecting from the really light Nikon to one of the others.
The player missing in this market at the moment is Panasonic. Will they come up with a competitor?
Here is an Easter Bunny, taken a couple of days ago using one of the family Nikon P510s with the zoom fully extended.
 |
| 180 mm (equivalent to 1000 mm full-frame 35 mm). ISO 320, f5.9, 1/500. AJP Photo |
Saturday, 9 March 2013
Cameras for Birding: The Zoom War Hots Up — Sony HX300
For bird and other wildlife watchers needing a light camera to record sightings, there was no choice a year ago. There was only the trend-setting Nikon P510 with its 24-1000 mm (35 mm equivalent) lens.
'Bridge' cameras have been selling very well (much to the tut-tutting of the mainstream photographic magazines who do not realise that carrying heavy binoculars and, often, a tripod and telescope as well means that an SLR with a long lens (often of inadequate length at that) is out of the question).
Canon soon followed Nikon, then Fuji and now Sony have followed with basically similar products; Nikon have followed up the P510 with the P520 (see my posts of 19 February 2013, 18 October 2012, 31 August 2012, 15 July 2012).
The Sony HX300 will be available in UK in early April. It is very difficult to say which model has the edge at the moment. The new Sony has more pixels but to see whether that compromises noise reduction we shall have to wait for the reviews. Disappointingly, it does not offer RAW, although with a 1200 mm equivalent lens and an output of 5184x3888 pixels, it could give that extra push that birders are always striving for. It is heavier than the Nikon but not so heavy as the Fuji
Here is my extraction of data from the technical details that are important to birders:
On Amazon UK prices of these models today are: Nikon P520 £355 (the P510 is still available at £239); Canon SX50 £362; Fuji HS50 £470; Sony HX300 £419 (pre-order).
'Bridge' cameras have been selling very well (much to the tut-tutting of the mainstream photographic magazines who do not realise that carrying heavy binoculars and, often, a tripod and telescope as well means that an SLR with a long lens (often of inadequate length at that) is out of the question).
Canon soon followed Nikon, then Fuji and now Sony have followed with basically similar products; Nikon have followed up the P510 with the P520 (see my posts of 19 February 2013, 18 October 2012, 31 August 2012, 15 July 2012).
The Sony HX300 will be available in UK in early April. It is very difficult to say which model has the edge at the moment. The new Sony has more pixels but to see whether that compromises noise reduction we shall have to wait for the reviews. Disappointingly, it does not offer RAW, although with a 1200 mm equivalent lens and an output of 5184x3888 pixels, it could give that extra push that birders are always striving for. It is heavier than the Nikon but not so heavy as the Fuji
Here is my extraction of data from the technical details that are important to birders:
| Nikon P520 | Canon SX50 | Fuji HS50 | Sony HX300 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optical Zoom (equiv) | 24-1000 | 24-1200 | 24-1000 | 24-1200 |
| Max Aperture | 3-5.9 | 3.4-6.5 | 2.8-5.6 | 2.8-6.3 |
| Sensor Size | 1/2.3 | 1/2.3 | 1/2 | 1/2.3 |
| Resolution (Mpixels) | 18.1 | 12.1 | 16 | 20.4 |
| Output Size (pixels) | 4896x3612 | 4000x3000 | 4609x3456 | 5184x3888 |
| Stablisation | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Output | JPG | RAW/JPG | RAW/JPEG | JPEG |
| Video | Full HD | Full HD | Full HD | Full HD |
| Weight g | 550 | 595 | 758 | 623 |
On Amazon UK prices of these models today are: Nikon P520 £355 (the P510 is still available at £239); Canon SX50 £362; Fuji HS50 £470; Sony HX300 £419 (pre-order).
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
Fuji HS50 - The Zoom War Continues
Fuji has now joined Nikon (P510) and Canon (SX50) in producing a 'bridge' camera with very long lens that is ideal for wildlife photography (see my post of 14 October 2012). I have sung the virtues and few vices of the P510 — it was first on the scene and clearly established that there is a demand for light cameras with a long lens (and, of necessity, a small sensor).
The specifications of the Fuji HS50 are very similar to the P510 with (as with the SX50), a few key differences: zoom range of 24-1000 mm in 35 mm equivalents; a slightly wider maximum aperture (f2.8 at 24 mm, decreasing to f5.6 at 1000); similar size of output (4609 x 3456). Like the Canon, but not the Nikon, there is RAW and full HD (1080) video output. In terms of weight, the Nikon (555 g) scores over the Canon (595 g) and the Fuji (758 g).
The prices of these cameras today on Amazon UK were:
Fuji HS50 £419.99
Canon SX50 £394.99
Nikon P510 £235.82
I also see that the Nikon P510 has disappeared from the WEX website. It is still on the Nikon UK list but its obvious replacement, the P520 (labelled 'new') is a disappointment. Nikon have gone for the same basic camera with the same lens but have added 3D and a few other irrelevant features (why? — stereoscopic photography has only ever had short waves of popularity and already looks on the wane again). An opportunity to add RAW output has been missed. For a price today of £399 for the P520, the Fuji and Canon seem more suited to the wildlife market. Nikon may have missed a trick after having been first in the field.
The value of a camera like the P510 to the birdwatcher wanting to get a picture quickly before a bird flies away has been demonstrated by my Number 2 son. The P510 I so kindly bought him for his birthday has already been used to provide evidence, acceptable to an expert committee, for a range extension of a rare bird, as well as allowing rare migrants to be identified in the comfort of air-conditioning and with the assistance of the full range of reference books. He keeps the camera set up with a central 'sniper' autofocus site when he is out, as I described in my post of 31 August 2012.
With Canon and then Fuji joining in the zoom war, will Panasonic come up with something longer than 600 mm to join them?
The specifications of the Fuji HS50 are very similar to the P510 with (as with the SX50), a few key differences: zoom range of 24-1000 mm in 35 mm equivalents; a slightly wider maximum aperture (f2.8 at 24 mm, decreasing to f5.6 at 1000); similar size of output (4609 x 3456). Like the Canon, but not the Nikon, there is RAW and full HD (1080) video output. In terms of weight, the Nikon (555 g) scores over the Canon (595 g) and the Fuji (758 g).
The prices of these cameras today on Amazon UK were:
Fuji HS50 £419.99
Canon SX50 £394.99
Nikon P510 £235.82
I also see that the Nikon P510 has disappeared from the WEX website. It is still on the Nikon UK list but its obvious replacement, the P520 (labelled 'new') is a disappointment. Nikon have gone for the same basic camera with the same lens but have added 3D and a few other irrelevant features (why? — stereoscopic photography has only ever had short waves of popularity and already looks on the wane again). An opportunity to add RAW output has been missed. For a price today of £399 for the P520, the Fuji and Canon seem more suited to the wildlife market. Nikon may have missed a trick after having been first in the field.
The value of a camera like the P510 to the birdwatcher wanting to get a picture quickly before a bird flies away has been demonstrated by my Number 2 son. The P510 I so kindly bought him for his birthday has already been used to provide evidence, acceptable to an expert committee, for a range extension of a rare bird, as well as allowing rare migrants to be identified in the comfort of air-conditioning and with the assistance of the full range of reference books. He keeps the camera set up with a central 'sniper' autofocus site when he is out, as I described in my post of 31 August 2012.
With Canon and then Fuji joining in the zoom war, will Panasonic come up with something longer than 600 mm to join them?
Thursday, 18 October 2012
Canon Powershot SX50: A Zoom War?
The announcement of the new Canon SX50 will be exciting to birders and other wildlife photographers. The zoom extends to the 35 mm equivelent of 1200 mm with image stabilisation of 4.5 stops. This is longer than the Nikon P510 I have (1000 mm).
So what's the difference on paper and the theoretical advantages/disadvantages of the two cameras.
Optical Zoom range: P510 24-1000; SX50 24-1200. Apparent advantage to Canon - but see below; Advantage to Canon for video
Maximum aperture: P510 f3-5.9; SX50 f3.4-6.5. Small advantage to Nikon
Sensor Size: P510 1/2.3 in; SX50 1/2.3 in
Resolution: P510 16.1 MPixels; SX50 12.1 MPixels. See discussion below
Size of output: P510 4608 x 3456; SX50 4000 x 3000 pixels. See discussion below
Stabilisation: P510 4 stops; SX50 4.5 stops. Small advantage to Canon
Output: P510 JPEG; SX50 RAW and JPG. Definite advantage to Canon
Weight: P510 555 g; SX50 595 g. Advantage to Nikon
With fewer pixels on the same size sensor, the Canon HX50 should be better in low light with regard to the control of noise than the Nikon. The e-Photozine review says fine to 3200 ASA. So, with respect to noise and low-light photography, the Canon is at an advantage.
In terms of the maximum zoom, the Canon's apparent advantage for still photography is not so clear cut. If the P510's output is enlarged digitally to effectively reduce the resolution to that of the SX50, then the equivalent focal length that can be reached is 1152 mm (the crude calculation is (4608/4000) x 1000). The advantage of the greater focal length is virtually wiped out. For HD video though, the Canon's longer zoom is a definite advantage.
Today, the Canon HX50 is £412 on Amazon.co.uk; the Nikon P510 is £283. Is the advantage of the 1200 mm equivalent lens for video (which is virtually wiped out for stills when resolution is taken into account), RAW output and probably better performance in low light worth the extra money? A hard decision for a new buyer because the only thing I miss on the P510 is RAW.
Will Nikon respond in the battle to keep the wildlife photographer who does not want to lug an SLR by launching a new version with the same resolution, improved control of noise, RAW output and a lens with a focal length greater than 1000 mm equivalent?
Panasonic seem to be going nowhere in this arms race; their latest 'bridge' (awful term) camera (DMC-FZ200) only extends to 600 mm, way off the pace for bird photographers and recorders, despite Amateur Photographer recommending it, for those who want to try their hand at wildlife photography... (29 September 2012). By contrast, the marketeers within Nikon and Canon do at least appear to know what wildlife folks want.
So what's the difference on paper and the theoretical advantages/disadvantages of the two cameras.
Optical Zoom range: P510 24-1000; SX50 24-1200. Apparent advantage to Canon - but see below; Advantage to Canon for video
Maximum aperture: P510 f3-5.9; SX50 f3.4-6.5. Small advantage to Nikon
Sensor Size: P510 1/2.3 in; SX50 1/2.3 in
Resolution: P510 16.1 MPixels; SX50 12.1 MPixels. See discussion below
Size of output: P510 4608 x 3456; SX50 4000 x 3000 pixels. See discussion below
Stabilisation: P510 4 stops; SX50 4.5 stops. Small advantage to Canon
Output: P510 JPEG; SX50 RAW and JPG. Definite advantage to Canon
Weight: P510 555 g; SX50 595 g. Advantage to Nikon
With fewer pixels on the same size sensor, the Canon HX50 should be better in low light with regard to the control of noise than the Nikon. The e-Photozine review says fine to 3200 ASA. So, with respect to noise and low-light photography, the Canon is at an advantage.
In terms of the maximum zoom, the Canon's apparent advantage for still photography is not so clear cut. If the P510's output is enlarged digitally to effectively reduce the resolution to that of the SX50, then the equivalent focal length that can be reached is 1152 mm (the crude calculation is (4608/4000) x 1000). The advantage of the greater focal length is virtually wiped out. For HD video though, the Canon's longer zoom is a definite advantage.
Today, the Canon HX50 is £412 on Amazon.co.uk; the Nikon P510 is £283. Is the advantage of the 1200 mm equivalent lens for video (which is virtually wiped out for stills when resolution is taken into account), RAW output and probably better performance in low light worth the extra money? A hard decision for a new buyer because the only thing I miss on the P510 is RAW.
Will Nikon respond in the battle to keep the wildlife photographer who does not want to lug an SLR by launching a new version with the same resolution, improved control of noise, RAW output and a lens with a focal length greater than 1000 mm equivalent?
Panasonic seem to be going nowhere in this arms race; their latest 'bridge' (awful term) camera (DMC-FZ200) only extends to 600 mm, way off the pace for bird photographers and recorders, despite Amateur Photographer recommending it, for those who want to try their hand at wildlife photography... (29 September 2012). By contrast, the marketeers within Nikon and Canon do at least appear to know what wildlife folks want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)